General Music Chat

Irminsul,

The dictionary is a useful tool. Words have meaning, and the meaning of words can usually be found in the dictionary. It is a good place to start.

To me, some things are beyond argument, or should be when they are evident. Drums are a musical instrument, a drummer plays them, hence a drummer is a musician.

Arguing this is really a useless exercise, kind of on par with...

"No it's not" "yes it is" "No it's not" "yes it is" "No it's not" "yes it is"

Have a discussion about something meaningful and useful, which is much more constructive than, as in a previous thread, trying to prove that rainbows in the sky without rain clouds is some kind of unexplained miraculous phenomenon, rather than accepting that there is a readily available scientific explanation for it.

The dictionary is great for dry word meanings. It's a lousy tool when used in a discussion of subtlety, nuance or multi-layered temporal interpretations.

The dictionary is great for dry word meanings. It's a lousy tool when used in a discussion of subtlety, nuance or multi-layered temporal interpretations.

Whether a drummer is a musician or not, is NOT rationally debatable. And all the subtlety, nuances and multi-layered temporal interpretations in the world will not make dog sh*t smell like anything other than dog sh*t.

You are, in effect, playing a game as an intellectual exercise, which ends up not being intellectual at all, within the context of this particular topic.

If the subject matter were something truly open to interpretation than I would be right on board with you, and even praise the intelligent discourse as something intellectually rewarding, which in fact, is something I happily expect from you.

However, throwing that out there, within this particular conversation, you may as well be arguing that the Earth, in totality, is flat, rather than spherical.

Some things, just "ARE" Irminsul, and all the poetic and artistic license in the world, will not change what it "IS" in reality.

*Whistles* Hey, guys, relax. Lol. This is just junk, none of this is a big deal. Both of you are right. A dictionary, or encyclopedia is an accurate interpretation of things in the world, however, it is true that when you use them as clause to justify an argument it sometimes throws off part of the debate.

It is kind of like, but not exactly, the human body. Alright, we hear it has 206 bones (I believe), well, if you do your research right that statistic can actually vary. It can vary depending on disease, or just different structures of the vertebrae. The spine varies in structure at times, depending on fusing of certain bones, and perhaps an addition or subtraction of the 33 vertebra. Now using the dictionary here would kind of throw things off, because it is just going to tell you (And probably many encyclopedias) that there are 33, period.

It is the same thing we are looking at here, you have factual thinking which is stated in dictionaries, and the same in encyclopedias, and then you have objective reasoning in which we examine things more in depth with supportive evidence that is not necessary factual, but more so theoretical. That is the community of science and how it works, theories are based upon facts, and evidence, but then again they are still debated. Hence why they are termed "theories” or “hypotheses.” There is no exact proof for them. Everything is arguable.

So, guys, just relax. This is not worth going back and forth over. Unless you both enjoy the debate, then I will just shut up, lol. I mean no harm, I just see no reason for fighting, or bickering.

Peace out, GuitarAnatomy.

whoa there amigos...im getting lost in all the talk of "intellectuals" and what not.............so now im just confused, i think were getting bogged down in the "details"...sense is becoming uncommon...

this reminds me of another similiar question...

which came first..the chicken or the egg??????


so whats the good word....yes or no.

whoa there amigos...im getting lost in all the talk of "intellectuals" and what not.............so now im just confused, i think were getting bogged down in the "details"...sense is becoming uncommon...

this reminds me of another similiar question...

which came first..the chicken or the egg??????


so whats the good word....yes or no.

... Lmao. No answer. I have no clue, chicken, egg, chicken, egg... It's a pickle I tell you.

Here is a question that could start a minor debate: Is shredding at high speeds (Like 300bpm) actually considered music? Or is it just 4 billion rambling notes that have no distinction due to speed.

Peace out, GuitarAnatomy.

theories are based upon facts, and evidence, but then again they are still debated. Hence why they are termed "theories” or “hypotheses.” There is no exact proof for them. Everything is arguable.

Drummers being musicians is NOT theoretical. It is fact.

Geez...Am I in the twilight zone or something?

The instrument they play produces various pitches and tones, and they manipulate and produce those tones using sticks and footpedals on various drum surfaces, cymbals, rims and sometimes chimes, cowbells and more.

Because they use a stick to create the sound is immaterial. A violinist uses a bow. A xylophonist uses a hammer.

Because the sound is produced through "striking" is immaterial. A pianist uses his fingers which triggers a hammer, "striking" the piano strings. Xylophonists "strike" wooden or metal bars with hammers.

A small xylophone may have only 12 distinct notes. A drummer can produce more pitches and tones than that. But no one would likely quesion whether a xylophonist is a musician or not.

Regardless of accepted usage of the english language as found in the dictionary, another form of whether something is valid or not, is common acceptance among the masses. Find me any instrumental band, anywhere, which does not list the drummer with the band members.

"We're happy to have with us today, the Dixie Dregs, and we're going to interview the band right now. first we have Steve Morse on guitar, T Lavitz on keyboards, Jerry Goodman on violin and Dave LaRue on bass guitar...."

Someone shouts from the crowd...

"What about that guy over there?"

"What? What guy? Oh the guy that was sitting behind the drum set during the whole show?"

"Well, we're not really sure who he is. He's not a musician apparently, we learned that truth thanks to the brighter minds on BandMix , so... gee... we don't know what that guy is doing here! So we don't introduce him anymore!"

Just brilliant! ... well... theoretically speaking.

You know what?

I feel a disclaimer, well, really a footnote, is in order here.

It's probably apparent that this topic gets me a little hot under the collar. The reason why is simple...

Some musicians, drummers included, have sacrificed careers, family respect and even relationships, pursuing an art they believed in. To suggest to an ENTIRE GROUP of musicians, that they may in fact, not really be musicians, is beyond ignorant. It is just plain wrong. It flies in the face of all they sacrificed and the hard work they endured, to become the best MUSICIANS they could possibly be.

Many, if not most, of the great songs and compositions throughout history, would not be, even slightly, the same, without drummers and percussionists.

They deserve better, than to be looked down upon, particularly by other musicians, as anything less than the skilled musicians that they are.

Hmm... I can understand why it would aggravate you. You have a good point, they should not be looked down upon. However, I must state, that this is just an open discussion/debate. I believe whole heartedly they are musicians and never said they are not. Though, I am saying that since this is a debate, we should leave it open and not become forceful about it. We stick to our opinions, we cannot change each others mind apparently.

They are musicians, without them and guitar, rock would be gone. This forum is not open to insult or downgrade their abilities, it is just an open forum for discussion and to view peoples opinions. Me and you are on the same page, we believe they are musicians completely. Some may disagree, and Irminsul was saying that it hurts a debate to use dictionaries and encyclopedias as proof. Also, I think what he meant was that we should debate this from personal opinion and throw out the books that say "yes they are musicians."

Well, that is all I have to say. Once more, no harm meant. Just a matter of opinion.

Peace out, GuitarAnatomy.

........or as the ol' farmer said,

"We shot the horse, now lets bury it"

Hmm... I can understand why it would aggravate you. You have a good point, they should not be looked down upon. However, I must state, that this is just an open discussion/debate. I believe whole heartedly they are musicians and never said they are not. Though, I am saying that since this is a debate, we should leave it open and not become forceful about it. We stick to our opinions, we cannot change each others mind apparently.

They are musicians, without them and guitar, rock would be gone. This forum is not open to insult or downgrade their abilities, it is just an open forum for discussion and to view peoples opinions. Me and you are on the same page, we believe they are musicians completely. Some may disagree, and Irminsul was saying that it hurts a debate to use dictionaries and encyclopedias as proof. Also, I think what he meant was that we should debate this from personal opinion and throw out the books that say "yes they are musicians."

Well, that is all I have to say. Once more, no harm meant. Just a matter of opinion.

Peace out, GuitarAnatomy.

well said ga...you have wisdom beyond your years...you have an "old head" as we say at home.

Wow Guitar Anatomy, you do sound wise beyond your years. Especially the way you assessed Irminsul's point of view. I agree with Craig. It's an instrument of music. They play it. They are musicians. To me it's not even open to debate. But Irminsul's point makes sense to me as well.

Thank you Irish Anthony and NeanderPaul. I am just trying to make a point, *Shrug*

"We shot the horse, now lets bury it," HowlinJ, um... Why are we shooting the horse in the first place, I cannot help but be a defender of animals, they are nicer than people, lmao. Just kidding.

Peace out, GuitarAnatomy.

........or as the ol' farmer said,

"We shot the horse, now lets bury it"

Nope. Apparently we are going to saddle it up still, and drag it around the field and discuss whether "theoretically" it is still alive or not. Because it would end the "debate" to just admit the damn thing is dead.

this reminds me of another similiar question...

which came first..the chicken or the egg??????

The egg.